100 TGP outlaws

okay, I wish I had not been partying tonight, because maybe I would have realized that you thought this was the issue I was talking about.

When I was talking to you earlier about comparing sex.com to a TGP it had nothing to do with 2257. When I was talking about the layers of protection re:2257.

Again, you know I support you, but I think you have missed my thought process, we are talking about different issues/

it is my understanding that as far as 2257 goes, sex.com may have some 2257 issues if they continue allowing hardcore tours, I know CS has to make some mods as a result

As Sleazy has discussed with Joan a few times in the past, ASACP has had to be extremely careful in recent years with who it accepts money from. It is fundamentally crucial to the future effectiveness of the organization that it not compromise it's relationship with the FBI and other federal and international law enforcement agencies, in order to achieve it's primary objective of protecting children. This has been an exceptionally difficult task for the reasons that many of you have outlined in former posts. TGPs as a group have been asked to wait until ASACP has stronger monitoring processes in place due to the fact that many of them accept submissions from unknown sources. Other businesses, such as dating sites, are similarily complicated.

But it doesn't end there. It has been a major focus of the organization to resolve this issue, not only to be able to accept more donations, but more importantly to establish a means to track down CP sites and traffic sources.

ASACP is about to launch traffic monitoring technology that will make it possible to address these issues in a big way, and allow for the inclusion of sites like SleazyDream as a sponsor.

Sex.com has been extremely helpful in addressing and solving fundamental questions around 'better practices' of ASACP members and the monitoring and use of certain metatags, as well as addressing issues relating to the new technology.

I can't say that every sponsor or member of ASACP has no traffic from or links to CP content, but the organization itself will now be able to figure that out. This will allow ASACP to bring in more members and sponsors, and also allow those members and sponsors to know just how clean their traffic actually is and take appropriate action. This has the potential to build some major roadblocks in the movement of CP traffic.

No, JMan, ASACP is not some exclusive club based on who you know, it's an organization that has effectively put pedophiles behind bars, and protected the future of many children. And it has managed to do this by maintaining a positive relationship with the FBI during a time when 'Adult' is the last word they want to cooperate with.

Visit ASACP at Internext for more details on the technology if you'll be there.

Thanks.

hmmm, I wonder if this is the technology I think it is . . . if so, it sure is multi-purpose.

Aly,

I understand the concerns that ASACP might have with the tracking of the sources of galleries submitted to TGP's, but shouldn't an exception be made to those that accept partner submits only?

Just wondering.

is this together with perfection pedo??
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

this thread is getting good.

I support what the asacp is trying to do and I believe in their cause whole heartly.

I HAVE tried to donate money to them in the past.

BUT, i was totally fine with that response till i found out that sex.com was a member. Thus my stance in this thread.

from what i can see, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the asacp is concerned with the tgp marketplace in regards to the issue of 2257, which is understandable. But to turn around and fully accept and endorse a site like sex.com that cannot have 2257 on all it's advertising links is labeling 'TGP' as something bad. I can't see any difference in how my site deals with advertisers than how sex.com does? My advertisers are required to comply to my contract backed by financial contrubation which states they have to have 2257 and their submissions are all checked by human eye. I can't understand why the reasons given to me as to why I can't currently be a member shouldn't also apply to sex.com??????

it really LOOKS like a double standard from where I sit, and for an organizartion that's putting itself out there as representing the industry as a whole that just doesn't smell right.

Sleazy that that money and donate it to yourself. Gastric Bypass and you may live past 40.

i am a little gassy today.........

So how 'helpful' do you have to be to become a sponsor?:eek7

BUT, i was totally fine with that response till i found out that sex.com was a member. Thus my stance in this thread.

from what i can see, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the asacp is concerned with the tgp marketplace in regards to the issue of 2257, which is understandable. But to turn around and fully accept and endorse a site like sex.com that cannot have 2257 on all it's advertising links is labeling 'TGP' as something bad. I can't see any difference in how my site deals with advertisers than how sex.com does? My advertisers are required to comply to my contract backed by financial contrubation which states they have to have 2257 and their submissions are all checked by human eye. I can't understand why the reasons given to me as to why I can't currently be a member shouldn't also apply to sex.com??????
** Thank you for your question. With respect to 2257 we do the following:
* Do not accept explicit advertising banners. The law is about images, not links.
* Unlike other search engines we do not cache images of sites in potential violation of 2257
* We spider our advertisers looking for illegal words every night
* We spider our advertisers looking for 2257 statements every night
* We actually examine each site before we take it as an advertiser and periodically recheck them for compliance

what you do is NO different than what many (not all) tgps do and have done for YEARS with their businesses.

I'm not saying it's wrong - it's good that you do that and i commend you for it, but many TGPs do the same or more and sex.com doesn't exactly have an exclusive on due dillengance in the adult advertising industry.

>I can buy keywords from sex.com and redirect the traffic to an >illegal site for a long time before i am caught ... although on >most TGP's especially Sleazy it is not allowed and is kicked off >the site in a matter of min... if it even makes it .. i think that >guys like shemp and sleazy have made grave efforts to live >within the standards of the internet and should not be >disallowed to join a coalition that is made of of people that want >to stop illegal acitivities....

** We spider looking for illegal activity every night
** We do active account management. This includes looking at each site, not taking anonymous advertisers, etc.
** When someone pays we have all the contact information. Thus they can be tracked down if needed
** Unlike TGPs (which we love), our advertisers pay money. It is illogical to buy keywords "black lesbians" and redirect it to "asian lesbians" sites. You would get non-converting traffic

gary - this response shows complete ignorance and a lot of prejustice on the tgp maretplace.

i can't speak for others, but in my circumstance there has never been an unpaid link on sleazydream since day 1. I have no annomous advertisers and have an address and contract for every link or it is my own and i have the 2257 info on it.

>but many TGPs do the same or more and sex.com doesn't >exactly have an exclusive on due dillengance in the adult >advertising industry.
I agree 110%

Are you saying advertisers on TGP's don't pay money? I must have been doing something very wrong, I want my money back from those TGP's!!

WG

not sure what you define as explicit, but i just pulled this image off sex.com

http://www.hjorleifson.com/apple/sex1.jpg

personally I don't see anything wrong with it but some people might define that as explicit.......

better yet, just got this one from sex.com

http://www.hjorleifson.com/apple/sex2.jpg


just what exactly are these 'explicit' images that you won't put on sex.com?

Are you sure about those explicity filters Gary? This was the first ad I saw on sex.com

http://www.wired2000.com/Miscpics/sex.bmp
WG

under the new 2257 it would be (at least that is my understanding)

First off....The quote feature is included on this board for a reason...Figure out how to use it.

Secondly...Sleazy is dead nuts on with the following reply:

''sexually explicit'' from 2256 means actual or simulated -


(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(B) bestiality;


(C) masturbation;


(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or


(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;


Note that proposed 2257 regulations takes (E) out of the definition.




so, it is conceivable that the sample pic provided would require 2257 statement and records since it can be argued it is showing masturbation (because the graphic is a depiction, and that's what 2257 covers).

use of sexually explicit images in banner advertising could trigger a 2257 requirement.. this is where it all gets so mirky and confusing, especially since this part of the thread is about use of "sexually explicit" images in advertisements.

the interpretations that i have heard so far is that banners with sexually explicit images would have to have 2257 statements and records (which would be an incredible burden and logistical nightmare to deal with, other than don't use sexually explicit imagery).




-brandon

that seems to be the easiest/safest route

Some of the "clarifications" made in the proposed 2257 regulations was that a webmaster made editorial judgements as to what is displayed, therefore they have the record keeping responsibilities of not using underage models.


For those following along with the new regs, you might argue that you have banners setup in rotation or are pulled from remote sources where the banner could change if the website dropped in a new banner, therefore you have no "editorial" control over what is displayed on your page..... you may try to argue a DMCA like argument that you had no control, but in a court, the prosecutor may ask if you had control over other parts of the site, you answer yes, and they would then draw the conclusion that you could have had control over the advertisements that you ran, but you chose not to.

in summary, if you are trying to be creative in defining words like "publish" or "control", etc using a dictionary, you are going to miss out on the legal meanings of these words, and therefore need to check with an attorney about what you are SPECFICALLY doing on your website, rather than talking in generalities as we are doing here.

-brandon

Does anyone remember what this thread was about initially?

all ive learned from this thread is that an explicit image on a TGP, would not be an explicit image if it was on sex.com ..

who said GFY isnt informative...

yep

I'm getting the feeling that some folks have gone away for the day. I can see the tumbleweeds...

I do hope this gets worked out.

I HAVE A DREAM, of one day when ALL adult sites are treaty equally, and Sleazy Dream is able to stand proudly with Aly and ASACP, as they fight side-by-side to eliminate child porn everywhere. :Graucho

Despite differences it is hard to find fault with an organization dedicated to eliminating child pornography.

B

i agree in principal. The asacp does great work for society in general and have saved many children from horrific things, i've never disputed that, but when i get publically plugged for donation and told in an enviroment full of clients that I'm not good enough to donate money but that they will accept my donation annomously I feel a little like i'm being looked down on. I can accept that if those rules for membership are equal for all- and did - but take it a step further - when i realized they accepted another site operating on similar peramiters to mine and tell me they are acceptible and i'm not and i get a little peeved as i don't understand their logic and i'm looking for some clarity as to this decision.

all i'd like (not saying i deserve an answer, just saying it would be nice to get one that makes sense is all) is some clarity there, and from the amount of icqs from other industry people i've recieved in the last few days about this and the page views this thread has gotten i think a lot of other people in this biz would like to know as well exactly what the reasons were for excluding me and not sex.com

- now understand i'm not saying sex.com is a bad site either in any way - they have great traffic and a good name and it's a wonderful thing that they support the asacp.

but

any person or organization that THINKS they're above question is QUESTIONABLE.

so i'm asking questions.....some of the answers so far arn't pretty....

I agree with you 100% !

I think this would be an opportunity for ASACP to extend an invitation to meet with some TGP owners to discuss this in detail.
it's long overdue.

joan was invited to several TGP VIP dinners - she never showed

well they must have meetings..where/when are they? lets
respectfully ask to send some representatives that understand how we conduct business.

good idea - but i was told their site specifically says TGPs arn't allowed.

or maybe someone could toilet paper their booth? :Graucho

Sorry, just a silly thought... :)

is there a secret handshake im not aware of?

i HAVE to restate this.

I wanted to donate money to the ASACP and have wanted to for MANY MANY months (years even) now. I still do (but not annomously)

I believe in what they are trying to do and have for some time. I've even invited Joan to several TGP VIP parties in the past to introduce her to many of the main traffic players in the TGP game. - She never showed up.

I accepted the reason Joan gave me as to why I couldn't donate to the organization - but when i realized the other day on the surface i was no different than sex.com i asked why sex.com was accepted and I wasn't. Thus the fuss here as I havnt' received a respectable answer to it yet that i could understand.


I'm not saying in ANY way sex.com is a bad company - they have great traffic and run a fine business and i refer people to them still - I commend them for supporting an organization like the asacp. It shows Gary has character and responsibility and is a good man in this industry and in life.


but i don't UNDERSTAND why sleazydream was refused based on the comments I've received from the asacp.


i don't like being left in the dark. I know i don't have a right to a reply, but I sure would LIKE a reasonable one.............if that's not tooooooooooo much to ask.

many paysites have things about them that are questionable - thus the asacp from what I'm told inspects every new paysite applicant for compliance. Why is TGP a blanket bann - different tgps operate differently - not all of them take submissions from unknown sources - and that statement shows much ignorance of the tgp marketplace.

I have never taken free submissions ever - and i think this is the problem - I feel like the asacp is using a defination they don't quite understand and i'm caught up in that.

i told joan initially i could not controll what other people do - and i accpeted being passed on membership cause i thought all members were paysites that had total controll of their content.

when seeing sex.com has membership in the asacp and like me has no controll over their advertisers websites and they make their living as I do linking to other people's websites - and we both require contracts that advertisers have 2257 backed by financial commitment on all advertisers - well that made me think - how am I any different than sex.com and why was I refused and they weren't?

Given that TGPs comprise such an important part of the adult industry, I do hope that this issue can be resolved.

I don't think that Sleazy is in any way saying that he has a problem with the ASACP or Sex.com. Rather I think that his intention is good and that he is truly looking for a way to work WITH the organization....certainly not against it.

A consistent standard or clarification of the standards for membership would probably really help here....

Just my :2 cents:

I have been thinking about this issue and believe you have some valid points. Given that you are not taking auto-submission and you are checking each one (i.e. know your customer), I understand your arguement. I personally will bring this issue up to the Advisory Board at the next meeting as again your point seems valid to me. With respect to the specific images you pointed out, we typically allow more explicit images for gay advertisers because of several political considerations. Looking at them, I will have them removed from the site. In any case, let's discuss your points in person at Internext!

sounds like progress has been made . . . although I find the "we typically allow more explicit images for gay advertisers because of several political considerations" very interesting

i respect that response, thank you.